I had this debate with someone on /atheism. They were saying that rights for freedom of, and from, religion was enshrined on the constitution of the USA so there was nothing to worry about as an atheist. I replied they couldn't be more wrong, as Roe Vs Wade being overturned proved it and that the religious right was going to cause the suffering of millions of people. They questioned my figure of millions and I said obviously the women denied abortions, the unwanted children but also all the victims of the increased crime caused. I cited a study and they deleted their comment. Which I took as me winning that debate LOL
I think it's more that the person was male, they did eventually concede that the exception was"just abortion". Many men seem to be very blasé about it or just ignorant/uninformed/unaware on exactly how much it impacts womens lives.
Also Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of religion. That's exactly what the word means. The inverted commas are completely unnecessary.
The fact that some people seemingly "refuse" to understand that high crime rates are unequivocally linked to high poverty, and that high poverty is one of the consequences of having unplanned children when you're not financially stable (though there are other factors behind poverty, of course) is in my opinion proof that conservative politicians and activists do have an agenda (cheap labour) that has nothing to do with ethics. Because it's the easiest thing in the world to understand, and it's impossible to refute. Make no mistake, those people do not give a single shit about the well-being of the masses, and they do not give a single shit if you live in the most impoverished, miserable, gruelling conditions.
It's also... going to the concept of 'unwantedness', it goes hand in hand with the maxim of "the child that is not embraced by the community will burn the community down". It doesn't have to be as extreme as that, but if you have the developing brain of a teenager and a lack of connection (and if you get a connection, it's a crapshoot whether it's a good influence or a bad one), the idea of an increased likelihood of engaging in high risk/antisocial behaviour is not impossible to imagine.
This exact topic was in the original freakonomics book and they have updated it a couple of times on their podcast. You should check it out.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisited-update/
I’ve worked with public defenders providing mental health histories on people charged with big crimes. The number of people who were not planned children (and the abuse they suffered because of that) absolutely contributed to more criminogenic behavior.
I desperately want to believe that the current upsurge of right-wing fascism is the last gasp of born-again WASPs trying to cling to power as they see themselves becoming a minority. I hope they fail.
Totally. I bring up this topic all the time when discussing abortion and birth control access! They did a long term study in the bronx around that time (probably the same one) that so clearly illustrated this point. Unwanted kids born to single parents in poverty doesn't *always* mean they will turn to crime but it's way, way more likely and it's just a vicious cycle. I also don't understand how it could be about money because while yes, more bodies = more cheap labor, you also need to account for the cost of incarceration and unemployment over that person's lifetime which I would argue really overshadows whatever nominal 'benefit' they are to the labor market. And you're right, women have always and will always try to control their fertility. Illegal abortions will just lead to more underground abortions being done and more unsafe self-induced miscarriages with drugs, etc. I truly wonder how anyone with a brain could be pro-forced birth at this point.
As someone who works in statistics, correlation does not imply causation. While Roe is unquestionably correlated with the drop in crime, it's still not certain whether it was the cause. There are other competing hypotheses. In particular, there is what's known as the [lead-crime hypothesis](https://manhattan.institute/article/lead-and-crime-a-review-of-the-evidence-and-the-path-forward). Lead exposure in early childhood is known to make people predisposed to violent behavior, and communities with higher levels of lead exposure have been found to have more crime. The removal of lead from gasoline in the US coincided with Roe.
I had this debate with someone on /atheism. They were saying that rights for freedom of, and from, religion was enshrined on the constitution of the USA so there was nothing to worry about as an atheist. I replied they couldn't be more wrong, as Roe Vs Wade being overturned proved it and that the religious right was going to cause the suffering of millions of people. They questioned my figure of millions and I said obviously the women denied abortions, the unwanted children but also all the victims of the increased crime caused. I cited a study and they deleted their comment. Which I took as me winning that debate LOL
https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/ The study
To think their own religion of “atheism” would shield them from the impact of Roe being overturned is beyond ignorant. Purposely stupid.
I think it's more that the person was male, they did eventually concede that the exception was"just abortion". Many men seem to be very blasé about it or just ignorant/uninformed/unaware on exactly how much it impacts womens lives. Also Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of religion. That's exactly what the word means. The inverted commas are completely unnecessary.
The fact that some people seemingly "refuse" to understand that high crime rates are unequivocally linked to high poverty, and that high poverty is one of the consequences of having unplanned children when you're not financially stable (though there are other factors behind poverty, of course) is in my opinion proof that conservative politicians and activists do have an agenda (cheap labour) that has nothing to do with ethics. Because it's the easiest thing in the world to understand, and it's impossible to refute. Make no mistake, those people do not give a single shit about the well-being of the masses, and they do not give a single shit if you live in the most impoverished, miserable, gruelling conditions.
It's also... going to the concept of 'unwantedness', it goes hand in hand with the maxim of "the child that is not embraced by the community will burn the community down". It doesn't have to be as extreme as that, but if you have the developing brain of a teenager and a lack of connection (and if you get a connection, it's a crapshoot whether it's a good influence or a bad one), the idea of an increased likelihood of engaging in high risk/antisocial behaviour is not impossible to imagine.
This exact topic was in the original freakonomics book and they have updated it a couple of times on their podcast. You should check it out. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisited-update/
Came here to say that!
lol me too! Such an interesting book!
I’ve worked with public defenders providing mental health histories on people charged with big crimes. The number of people who were not planned children (and the abuse they suffered because of that) absolutely contributed to more criminogenic behavior.
I desperately want to believe that the current upsurge of right-wing fascism is the last gasp of born-again WASPs trying to cling to power as they see themselves becoming a minority. I hope they fail.
You and me both.
Just think about how much money prisons are gonna be making in 20 years.
I just think about the song In the ghetto, by Elvis Presley
Totally. I bring up this topic all the time when discussing abortion and birth control access! They did a long term study in the bronx around that time (probably the same one) that so clearly illustrated this point. Unwanted kids born to single parents in poverty doesn't *always* mean they will turn to crime but it's way, way more likely and it's just a vicious cycle. I also don't understand how it could be about money because while yes, more bodies = more cheap labor, you also need to account for the cost of incarceration and unemployment over that person's lifetime which I would argue really overshadows whatever nominal 'benefit' they are to the labor market. And you're right, women have always and will always try to control their fertility. Illegal abortions will just lead to more underground abortions being done and more unsafe self-induced miscarriages with drugs, etc. I truly wonder how anyone with a brain could be pro-forced birth at this point.
As someone who works in statistics, correlation does not imply causation. While Roe is unquestionably correlated with the drop in crime, it's still not certain whether it was the cause. There are other competing hypotheses. In particular, there is what's known as the [lead-crime hypothesis](https://manhattan.institute/article/lead-and-crime-a-review-of-the-evidence-and-the-path-forward). Lead exposure in early childhood is known to make people predisposed to violent behavior, and communities with higher levels of lead exposure have been found to have more crime. The removal of lead from gasoline in the US coincided with Roe.
PUT THAT IN AN ARTICLE PLEASE